Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages)

The Great Whales: History and Status of Six Species Listed as Endangered Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973

In the history of whaling from prehistoric to modern times, the large whales, sometimes called the “great whales,” were hunted most heavily owing in part to their corresponding value in oil, meat, and baleen. Regional populations of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis glacialis, were already decimated by 1700, and the North Atlantic gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus, was hunted to extinction by the early 1700’s (Mitchell and Mead1).

The Threatened Status of Steller Sea Lions, Eumetopias jubatus, under the Endangered Species Act: Effects on Alaska Groundfish Fisheries Management

In April 1990, the Steller sea lion, Eumetopias jubatus, was listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act by emergency action. Competitive interactions with the billion-dollar Alaska commercial groundfish fisheries have been suggested as one of the possible contributing factors to the Steller sea lion population decline. Since the listing, fisheries managers have attempted to address the potential impacts of the groundfish fisheries on Steller sea lion recovery. In this paper, we review pertinent Federal legislation, biological information on the Steller sea lion decline, changes in the Alaska trawl fishery for walleye pollock, Theragra chalcogramma, since the late 1970's, andpossible interactions between fisheries and sea lions. Using three cases, we illustrate how the listing of Steller sea lions has affected Alaska groundfish fisheries through: I) actions taken at the time of listing designed to limit the potential for directhuman-related sea lion mortality, 2) actions addressing spatial and temporal separation of fisheries from sea lions, and 3) introduction of risk-adverse stock assessment methodologies and Steller sea lion conservation considerations directly in the annual quota-setting process. This discussion shows some of the ways that North Pacific groundfish resource managers have begun to explicitly consider the conservation ofmarine mammal and other nontarget species.

Pacific Salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the Definition of "Species" Under the Endangered Species Act

For purposes ofthe Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature. "Federal agencies charged with carrying out the provisions of the ESA have struggled for over a decade to develop a consistent approach for interpreting the term "distinct population segment." This paper outlines such an approach and explains in some detail how it can be applied to ESA evaluations of anadromous Pacific salmonids. The following definition is proposed: A population (or group of populations) will be considered "distinct" (and hence a "species ")for purposes of the ESA if it represents an evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: 1) It must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units, and 2) It must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species. Isolation does not have to be absolute, but it must be strong enough to permit evolutionarily important differences to accrue in different population units. The second criterion would be met if the population contributes substantially to the ecological/genetic diversity of the species as a whole. Insights into the extent of reproductive isolation can be provided by movements of tagged fish, natural recolonization rates observed in other populations, measurements of genetic differences between populations, and evaluations of the efficacy of natural barriers. Each of these methods has its limitations. Identification of physical barriers to genetic exchange can help define the geographic extent of distinct populations, but reliance on physical features alone can be misleading in the absence of supporting biological information. Physical tags provide information about the movements of individual fish but not the genetic consequences of migration. Furthermore, measurements ofc urrent straying or recolonization rates provide no direct information about the magnitude or consistency of such rates in the past. In this respect, data from protein electrophoresis or DNA analyses can be very useful because they reflect levels of gene flow that have occurred over evolutionary time scales. The best strategy is to use all available lines of evidence for or against reproductive isolation, recognizing the limitations of each and taking advantage of the often complementary nature of the different types of information. If available evidence indicates significant reproductive isolation, the next step is to determine whether the population in question is of substantial ecological/genetic importance to the species as a whole. In other words, if the population became extinct, would this event represent a significant loss to the ecological/genetic diversity of thes pecies? In making this determination, the following questions are relevant: 1) Is the population genetically distinct from other conspecific populations? 2) Does the population occupy unusual or distinctive habitat? 3) Does the population show evidence of unusual or distinctive adaptation to its environment? Several types of information are useful in addressing these questions. Again, the strengths and limitations of each should be kept in mind in making the evaluation. Phenotypic/life-history traits such as size, fecundity, and age and time of spawning may reflect local adaptations of evolutionary importance, but interpretation of these traits is complicated by their sensitivity to environmental conditions. Data from protein electrophoresis or DNA analyses provide valuable insight into theprocessofgenetic differentiation among populations but little direct information regarding the extent of adaptive genetic differences. Habitat differences suggest the possibility for local adaptations but do not prove that such adaptations exist. The framework suggested here provides a focal point for accomplishing the majorgoal of the Act-to conserve the genetic diversity of species and the ecosystems they inhabit. At the same time, it allows discretion in the listing of populations by requiring that they represent units of real evolutionary significance to the species. Further, this framework provides a means of addressing several issues of particular concern for Pacific salmon, including anadromous/nonanadromous population segments, differences in run-timing, groups of populations, introduced populations, and the role of hatchery fish.

Bycatch provisions in the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act

Bycatch can harm marine ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, lead to injury or mortality of protected species, and have severe economic implications for fisheries. On 12 January 2007, President George W. Bush signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA). The MSRA required the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to establish a Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program (BREP) to develop technological devices and other conservation engineering changes designed to minimize bycatch, seabird interactions, bycatch mortality, and post-release mortality in Federally managed fisheries. The MSRA also required the Secretary to identify nations whose vessels are engaged in the bycatch of protected living marine resources (PLMR’s) under specified circumstances and to certify that these nations have 1) adopted regulatory programs for PLMR’s that are comparable to U.S. programs, taking into account different conditions, and 2) established management plans for PLMR’s that assist in the collection of data to support assessments and conservation of these resources. If a nation fails to take sufficient corrective action and does not receive a positive certification, fishing products from that country may be subject to import prohibitions into the United States. The BREP has made significant progress to develop technological devices and other conservation engineering designed to minimize bycatch, including improvements to bycatch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices in Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico trawl fisheries, gillnets in Northeast fisheries, and trawls in Alaska and Pacific Northwest fisheries. In addition, the international provisions of the MSRA have provided an innovative tool through which the United States can address bycatch by foreign nations. However, the inability of the National Marine Fisheries Service to identify nations whose vessels are engaged in the bycatch of PLMR’s to date will require the development of additional approaches to meet this mandate.

The NIPAS Act of 1992

Republic Act 7586 (Philippines) provides for the establishment and management of a National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS).